alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021062EN.01002201.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group

(Case C-728/19) (1)

(2021/C 62/26)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---
# C_2018427EN.01009401.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/94

---

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Boxer Barcelona v EUIPO — X-Technology Swiss (XBOXER)

(Case T-582/18)

(2018/C 427/124)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Boxer Barcelona, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark XBOXER — Application for registration No 11 673 068

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2186/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | Insufficiency of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent. |
| --- | --- |

—

Insufficiency of the evidence of use submitted by the opponent.

| — | Absence of confusion as regards the similarity between the opposing marks and the mark applied for. |
| --- | --- |

—

Absence of confusion as regards the similarity between the opposing marks and the mark applied for.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-12-00192-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 1052722

Style: Irvin White

v Angela Stanlee White and the Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Date motion filed*: May 9, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: no

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown

Date: September 4, 2013
# C_2009297EN.01001401.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V., Metro Cash & Carry B.V., Remo Zaandam B.V. v Diesel S.P.A.

(Case C-324/08) (1)

1

(Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade-mark law - Exhaustion of trade mark proprietor’s rights - Placing of goods on the market in the European Economic Area by a third party - Implied consent - Conditions)

2009/C 297/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V., Metro Cash & Carry B.V., Remo Zaandam B.V.

Applicants:

Defendant: Diesel S.P.A.

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Exhaustion of the right conferred by the mark — Product placed on the market in the Community or the EEA by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent — Implied consent — Conditions

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that the consent of the proprietor of a trade mark to the marketing of goods bearing that mark carried out directly in the European Economic Area by a third party who has no economic link to that proprietor may be implied, in so far as such consent is to be inferred from facts and circumstances prior to, simultaneous with or subsequent to the placing of the goods on the market in that area which, in the view of the national court, unequivocally demonstrate that the proprietor has renounced his exclusive rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 68 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) and Amendment No. 544 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.









/s/ Ernst &  Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania




December 27, 2016
#### State v. McWhite

23950

09/03/2002

Denied

98 Hawai'i 512, 51 P.3d 379
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

  The Secretary of the Senate announced that on today, July 26, 2012, 
she had presented to the President of the United States the following 
enrolled bill:

       S. 1335. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     provide rights for pilots, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________
```
SERVED: October 18, 2013 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA- 2013-0040 

ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE 

, This matter is currently set for hearing on October 28 and 29, 2013, inclusive, in the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court, 14th Floor, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1496. 

The Agency has requested a continuance citing the government shutdown. Respondent has filed an 

objection. 

Under normal circumstances we would deny the request for continuance. The government 

furlough/shutdown was an extraordinary event. 

WHEREFORE, the Agency's request and Respondent's objection to continue this matter having been 

read and considered it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. This matter is continued from the dates cited above. 

2. The parties should advise the court as soon as possible of their availability during the 

following periods: 

a. December 2 through December 6, 2013, 

b. December 9 through December 13,2013, 

c. January 2014, excluding January 20, and 

d. February 2014, excluding February 3 through 7, inclusive. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
J 

' 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal· Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing-Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
#### The State, ex rel. Marshall, *v.*Sweeney, Secy. of State.

(No. 32121

Decided March 8, 1950.)

*212
      *Mr. E. G. Schuessler,*for relator.

*Mr. Herbert S. Duffy,*attorney general, and *Mr. William C. Bryant,*for respondent.

By the Court.

The question presented is well stated in relator’s brief as follows:

> “The single question presented is whether a declaration of candidacy and the petition consisting of a number of separate part-petitions, filed therewith, meet the requirements of law if such declaration of candidacy is filed and the statements made therein are sworn to by the candidate on only one of such separate petition papers, and such declaration of candidacy so filed is copied on each of the other separate petition papers before the signatures of electors are placed thereon. Stated otherwise, the question is whether each separate petition paper is required to have the completed *213affidavit, attached to the original declaration of candidacy, copied thereon.”

The decision in this case depends upon the proper interpretation of Sections 4785-71 and 4785-72, General Code.

In Section 4785-71, General Code, there is prescribed a form for declaration of candidacy and petition. As a part of the declaration of candidacy there is prescribed the following:

> “The State of Ohio j “County of..... j

> “..........(Name of candidate), being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the candidate named in the above declaration of candidacy and that the statements and declarations therein contained are true as he verily believes.

> “(Signature of candidate)

> “Subscribed and sworn to before me this ....day of......, 19. .

> “(Signature of officer administering oath)

> “ (Title of officer) ”

Section 4785-72, General Code, provides:

> “If the petition required by law to be filed with a declaration of candidacy should consist of more than one separate petition paper the declaration of candidacy of the candidate named in the petition need be *214signed by the candidate and his affidavit thereto need be subscribed by him and executed on only one of such separate petition papers, but the declaration of candidacy so signed, subscribed and executed shall be copied on each other separate petition paper before the signatures of electors are placed thereon. * * * ”

It is argued by relator that the elimination of the word, “affidavit,” in the part to be copied on the other separate petition papers is significant, and the affidavit on such other papers is unnecessary.

The respondent, on the contrary, argues that as the affidavit is a part of the form of the declaration of candidacy prescribed in Section 4785-71, General Code, it was intended by the General Assembly that the entire form as outlined in Section 4785-71, General Code, including the affidavit, should be copied in full. This seems a* reasonable requirement to the end that the person asked to sign the petition may have the assurance under oath that the facts recited in the foregoing declaration of candidacy are true.

Therefore, the writ of mandamus should be, and hereby is denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
#### State v. Balanay

21208, 21399

04/12/1999

Affirmed
# PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST

FLIGHT FOR SAFE OPERATION OF UAVs

GO SLOW DON’T BE AN IDIOT Transmitter firmware up to date UAV firmware up to date Inspect UAV for obvious defects Batteries fully charged Propellers tightened and/or locked ND Filter needed? Yes/No SD card in camera, SD card formatted if needed Monitor brightness set to high & hood installed Transmitter antenna up Transmitter turned on UAV turned on Compass calibrated UAV placed in safe launch and recover position Area clear of people

Warn bystanders of imminent takeoff Hover close for 20 seconds. Look/listen for defects Confirm expected stick operation Monitor battery power Keep line of sight with UAV if possible Monitor signal strength
EXHIBIT 32

 Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and
  Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
                                      2002

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Aura Systems, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Date: November 16, 2005                         /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                                ------------------
                                                Dennis Calvert
                                                Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 16, 2005                         /s/ Dennis Calvert
                                                ------------------
                                                Dennis Calvert
                                                Interim Chief Financial Officer


                                     - 30 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHARON P. MICKLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-44)

Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharon P. Mickle, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Ann Colombell, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Mickle raised issues before this court that were not raised

below. We generally do not consider issues raised for the first

time on appeal. See Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941);

Grossman v. Comm’r, 182 F.3d 275, 280-81 (4th Cir. 1999); Skipper

v. French, 130 F.3d 603, 610 (4th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the additional issues raised by Mickle are not properly addressed in a 18

U.S.C. § 3582 motion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Sharon P. Mickle appeals the district court’s order denying

her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994) motion for resentencing.* We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Mickle, No. CR-91-44 (E.D.

Va. July 19, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,841
<PP&E>                                          39,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,467
<BONDS>                                        481,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   660,212
<SALES>                                         82,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,116
<CGS>                                           60,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,822
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021182EN.01000402.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — MK v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-388/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Tax on capital gains from immovable property - Free movement of capital - Basis for assessment of tax - Discrimination - Option to be taxed according to the same arrangements as residents - Compliance with EU law)

(2021/C 182/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MK

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which, in order to permit the capital gains realised from the transfer of immovable property situated in that Member State, by a taxable person resident in another Member State, not to be subject to a tax burden greater than that which would be applied to capital gains realised from the same type of transaction by a person resident in the first Member State, makes the taxation regime applicable dependent upon the choice made by that taxable person.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID: DoD-2023-OS-0106]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, (OUSD(I&S)), Department of Defense, (DoD).

# ACTION:

60-Day information collection notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        On November 1, 2023, the DoD published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        . Subsequent to publication of the notice, the information in the                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         section changed. This correction provides the updated information.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective December 18, 2023.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of November 1, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-24103, on page 74986, in the second and third columns, correct the                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                     caption to read:                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Mr. Timothy Phillips,                         *osd.pentagon.ousd-intel-sec.mesg.contact-aaro-mbx@mail.mil*                         or call 703-545-8567.                    

      ( print page 87413)    
Dated: December 13, 2023.

Aaron T. Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2023-27720 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
#### Fawick Airflex Co., Inc., Appellee, *v.*United Electrical, Radio *&*Machine Workers of America et al., Appellants.

(No. 32188

Decided May 24, 1950.)

*Messrs. Marshman, Hollington S Steadman,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Davis, Davis & Handelman,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, •Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.